I would rather be on a train or bus than drive

miketoronto · #1 Posted **May 2, 2012, 12:58 PM**

I had to drive to Cleveland the other day, which is about a 5 hour drive from Toronto.

I would rather have taken a bus or train, but the schedules did not work out well, so I had to drive.

I have been on a road trips where friends drive, and it is fun, as you stop at place along the way.

But I really don't get why people get so excited to drive long distances when the trip involves just having to get where you need to go.

My brother for example refuses to use any form of transportation but his car. And he will drive 8 or 12 hours to get some place.

It was not the worst trip ever, and I could fully handle driving long distances.
But I really did not find it relaxing, etc.

Maybe I am just not born to drive a lot

, because everyone said once I had my full license I would want to drive everywhere. But I still enjoy walking places, biking places, and taking public transit.

I do enjoy driving around the city to explore once in a while. But overall I still enjoy the other transport modes more often.

Are any of you the same?

emathias · #2 Posted **May 2, 2012, 1:07 PM**

When I was in my early 20s, I didn't mind - I even kinda liked - driving long distances just to see new places. These days, though, anything over an hour becomes very tedious to me (I'm 38). This actually contributes to my propensity to speed, because I just don't want to be behind the wheel any longer than absolutely necessary. Even in suburban LA, I was passing people left and right.

ChiSoxRox · #3 Posted **May 2, 2012, 1:14 PM**

Me too. On a train or a bus, you can do something productive like read or watch the scenery go by, instead of all attention focused on driving. As well, you're not (directly) paying for gas on a train or bus.

glowrock · #4 Posted **May 2, 2012, 1:49 PM**

Mike, that somehow doesn't surprise me in the least...

As for me, I have no problem driving long distances when needed, but there's no doubt that I'd rather fly, train, or bus it longer distances IF I won't need my car at all in and near my destination. In other words, why drive from Pittsburgh to Philadelphia for sightseeing when it's cheap and convenient to take Megabus, not to mention parking in Philly is atrocious? But if I needed to be in SUBURBAN Philly, then I'd drive. All depends on what you do at your destination city...

Aaron (Glowrock)

mhays · #5 Posted **May 2, 2012, 2:38 PM**

I'm going to Vancouver this weekend (a rare visit as tourist, not seeing friends or relatives). I got a license recently for the first time in many years but renting a car didn't occur to me and still hasn't. I'm on Amtrak, which is just twice per day on this route, far worse than the equivalent trip to Portland. The Amtrak website replies with times for buses as an equivalent, at better times of day and slightly faster. I still picked train.

Roadcruiser1 · #6 Posted **May 2, 2012, 2:55 PM**

Use Amtrak

.

Steely Dan · #7 Posted **May 2, 2012, 3:25 PM**

I would rather be on a bicycle

or alternatively, a kayak.

brickell · #8 Posted **May 2, 2012, 3:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by miketoronto

But I really don't get why people get so excited to drive long distances when the trip involves just having to get where you need to go.

I can't say I know too many people who feel that way.
For most, driving is a chore, but it's still more convenient than rail travel (in many cases).

Lipani · #9 Posted **May 2, 2012, 5:18 PM**

I work in four different cities, but mostly in San Diego. The only time I change the following routine is if I don't return to San Diego immediately after a job is over. If I could do all of these trips via train I definitely would.

SD > LA - Amtrak
SD > SF - Fly
SD > Vegas - Drive

uaarkson · #10 Posted **May 2, 2012, 5:28 PM**

I love driving, and I hope that one day our dependence on cars is reduced to the point where actually driving a car is more about recreation, with good public transit there for the necessities of life. Many stretches of highway in this nation would be an absolute thrill to drive if there were simply less people driving on them!

bunt_q · #11 Posted **May 2, 2012, 6:29 PM**

Anything within town, I much prefer not to have to drive...

But for long distances, car is definitely the way to go. I hate flying - a necessary evil for time-constrained travel. Inter-city trains aren't really an option, and even if they are someday, they'll have to be both time and cost competitive, which will be tough. But if schedule were no concern... I love a good road trip. Plus, without a car, there'd be no way to hit up Wall Drug, the Corn Palace, the big ball of twine, and all of the other little oddities that make rural areas fun (joking, but I do like a brief detour for national parks, historic sites, etc... that's the whole point of inter-city travel, and not an option if you're on a bus).

Although, 5 hours doesn't get you too far from Denver. Try 15.

Jonboy1983 · #12 Posted **May 2, 2012, 8:21 PM**

Oh, if I had the choice, I'd take public transportation in a heartbeat. Since my job is nowhere near access to it, I have no choice but to drive. Work is only 10 minutes away tho. Still, when I worked as an intern for the City of Philadelphia, I drove from my home in Exton (at the time) and only went as far as the Exton SEPTA R5 station. I slept for another 50 minutes!!

papilgee4evaeva · #13 Posted **May 2, 2012, 8:45 PM**

For intercity travel, I have no problem at all with driving. I'm one of those people who likes taking different routes to get places, coming and going on my own schedule, and stopping whenever I want or need to.

That, and many of my relatives don't live anywhere near a train station.

That also, and I remember my wife's stories about how she'd take Greyhound between where she was living and the college we went to. That's a four-hour drive at the most. Greyhound tripled that time.

Within a city or metro, I've driven, taken the bus, and ridden the rails. I'd do all three again.